DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s claim to priority to U.S. Provisional App. No. 63/271,358 filed 10/25/2021 and U.S. Provisional App. No. 63/271,372 filed 10/25/2021.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on 12/11/2025. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application. Claims 8-20 are presently withdrawn from consideration following the response to the requirement for restriction/election.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one sensor device” in claim 1, line 4.
The corresponding structure for the “at least one sensor device” defined within the specification is “infrared cameras, multispectral cameras, or three-dimensional surface temperature sensing arrays” (Paragraph [0035], Lines 5-6) and any functional equivalents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao (US 20150335385) in view of Yuan (US 20090326381).
Regarding claim 1, Miao teaches a non-invasive thermometry system (Paragraph [0004]; a system including: (i) an imager, wherein the imager is configured to image a biological tissue, wherein imaging the biological tissue comprises detecting infrared light received from the biological tissue, and wherein the infrared light received from the biological tissue is related to a temperature of the biological tissue) adapted for use in hyperthermia treatments (Paragraph [0004]; a heating laser, wherein the heating laser is configured to emit a beam of electromagnetic radiation at the biological tissue, wherein the beam of electromagnetic radiation causes localized heating of a target region), the non-invasive thermometry system comprising:
a processor device (Paragraph [0004]; (iii) a controller, wherein the controller is operatively coupled to the imager and the heating laser; Paragraph [0081]; Controller 510 may include a general-purpose processor or a special purpose processor, Fig. 5);
at least one sensor device (Paragraph [0033]; active tracking system 100 includes an imager 110, Fig. 1) operably coupled to the processor device (Paragraph [0004]; a controller, wherein the controller is operatively coupled to the imager) capable of capturing and transmitting a surface temperature spatial data to the processor device (Paragraph [0037]; The imager 110 could be configured and/or operated to determine the temperature of a region of the biological tissue 150 (e.g., a temperature of the high-temperature region 154) or of a region of some other environment of interest; Paragraph [0035]; biological tissue 150 could be an external tissue, e.g. skin); and
a memory (Paragraph [0082]; computer-readable storage media 512, Fig. 5) operably coupled to the processor device (Paragraph [0082]; read or accessed by at least one controller 510, Fig. 5) and storing computer-executable (Paragraph [0081]; configured to execute computer-readable program instructions 514 that are stored in a computer readable data storage 512, Fig. 5) instructions causing:
defining an expected target temperature spatial map correlated to the measured surface temperature spatial data captured by the at least one sensor device (Paragraph [0051]; the temperature or other information about the high-temperature region corresponding to the image of the high-temperature region could be determined; used to determine the temperature or other information about other regions of an environment imaged by the imager 210; Paragraph [0052]; determined mapping could be used to determine the location of the first target region 252a) by querying a relational database (Paragraph [0051]; using a look-up table);
setting a performance objective that identifies one or more performance criteria (Paragraph [0029]; that the temperature of the target region was substantially equal to a specified temperature, or to a series of specified temperatures at a respective series of points in time; Setting a target area to be a specific temperature/have a specific temper at a series of points in time is considered to read on the claimed limitation of setting a performance objective that identifies one or more performance criteria as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation);
collecting and monitoring the surface temperature spatial data (Paragraph [0037]; The imager 110 could be configured and/or operated to determine the temperature of a region of the biological tissue 150 (e.g., a temperature of the high-temperature region 154) or of a region of some other environment of interest);
comparing the measured surface temperature spatial data to the performance criteria (Paragraph [0047]; , the imager 110 could be configured to determine the temperature of the high-temperature region 154 and the power of the beam of electromagnetic radiation 125 could be controlled based on the detected temperature of the high-temperature region 154 to maintain the temperature of the high-temperature region 154 substantially equal to a specified temperature); and
dynamically reporting the comparing (Paragraph [0051]; , a threshold operation could be applied to the received infrared light and circle-fitting or some other centroid-locating operation could be applied to the thresholded data to determine the location of an image of a high-temperature region of tissue within an image of a biological tissue or other environment of interest).
Miao does not explicitly teach the expected target temperature spatial map includes depth.
Yuan, however, teaches a non-invasive thermometry system (Paragraph [0006]; acquiring one or more thermal points of a human subject; calculating spatial distribution of the one or more thermal points) comprising processing device configured to defining an expected target temperature spatial map at depth (Paragraph [0036]-[0037]; the temperature and intensity at various depths of the body can be calculated using heat equations and heat conduction models, which allow the temperature and intensity beneath the surface of the skin to be derived; The relation between the temperature at various depths and the skin temperature is considered to be an expected target temperature spatial map as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation) correlated to a measured surface temperature (Paragraph [0065]; spatial distribution calculation 640 takes into account the infrared temperature acquired from the surface of the human body and accounting for such surface temperature for any ambient interference. The thermal surface temperatures can then be subjected to mathematical algorithms and functions like the heat transport equation and heat conduction equation to provide temperature readings at different depths and intensities) captured by the at least one sensor device (Paragraph [0062]; Infrared imaging systems having optical electronics are able to gather infrared radiation from human subjects through filtering, modulating and converting photoelectric signals into electronic or digital signals.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Miao to have included a defining the expected target temperature spatial map at depth as taught by Yuan because it would better allow identification and directing of the thermal energy to structures below the surface of the skin (Yuan, Paragraph [0064]) and thereby increase accuracy of aiming the high-temperature region to region of treatment and thus the improve the therapy.
Regarding claim 2, together Miao and Yuan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Miao further teaches the at least one sensor device is selected from the group consisting of: infrared camera (Paragraph [0026]; imager could include an infrared camera).
Regarding claim 6, together Miao and Yuan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Miao further teaches the non-invasive thermometry system is configured to interface with a treatment head (Paragraph [0033]; The active tracking system 100 includes a heating laser 120 that can be operated to heat regions of the biological tissue 150, Fig. 1), wherein the dynamically reporting the comparing further comprises sending an instruction to modify a treatment head performance value of the treatment head (Paragraph [0047]; , the imager 110 could be configured to determine the temperature of the high-temperature region 154 and the power of the beam of electromagnetic radiation 125 could be controlled based on the detected temperature of the high-temperature region 154 to maintain the temperature of the high-temperature region 154 substantially equal to a specified temperature).
Regarding claim 7, together Miao and Yuan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Miao further teaches the at least one sensor is operably connected to the processor device via a wireless connection (Paragraph [0048]; active tracking system 100 could be configured to communicate with another system… using the remote system; active tracking system 100 could be implemented as part of a robotic surgical system (e.g., the imager 110, heating laser 120); Paragraph [0088]; active tracking system 500 could be configured to image a biological environment and then transmit the data to a remote server, which may include a mobile device, a personal computer, the cloud, or any other remote system, for further processing; Paragraph [0089]; active tracking system 500 or could be disposed away from other elements of the active tracking system 500 and could further be in wireless communication with the other elements of the active tracking system 500).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao in view of Yuan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of D'Estais (US 20220160240).
Regarding claim 3, together Miao and Yuan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Miao further teaches the system comprises at least two sensor devices (Paragraph [0026]; The imager could include more than one infrared) where a first sensor device is configured to capture data substantially at a treatment location (Paragraph [0052]; For example, the heating laser 220 and the imager 210 could be co-axial, such that a mapping could be determined between the angle of the orientation of the heating laser 220 (e.g., the direction of the first beam of electromagnetic radiation 225a relative to elements of the active tracking system 200) and image locations in the first example image 270a (or any other image) generated by the imager 210).
Together Miao and Yuan do not explicitly teach the second sensor device is configured to capture data substantially orthogonally to the treatment location.
D'Estais, however, teaches a non-invasive thermometry system (Paragraph [0021]; a device for measuring a plurality of temperatures with the aim of determining a core internal temperature of a human being wearing said measurement device) wherein a first sensor device (Paragraph [0194]; plurality of skin temperature sensors 33; Paragraph [0207]; one proximal temperature sensor (35); Fig. 3) is configured to capture data substantially at a treatment location (Paragraph [0110]; the at least three skin temperature sensors of the first set are arranged to be in direct contact with the skin of the arm of the wearer) and a second sensor device (Paragraph [0194]; plurality of skin temperature sensors 33; Paragraph [0207]; one proximal temperature sensor (35); Fig. 3) is configured to capture data substantially orthogonally to the treatment location (Paragraph [0062]; The proximal temperature sensor… can be angularly offset (i.e. around the Z axis of the cylinder) with respect to the cavity temperature sensor or to the axis of the group of cavity temperature sensors, in a worn configuration of the measurement device, by at least 90°; Fig. 13c and 13d; the offset of at least 90 degrees includes 90 degrees and is considered to read on the claimed limitation of capture data substantially orthogonally to the treatment location as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the second sensor device of Miao in view of Yuan to have captured the data substantially orthogonal to the treatment location because it would have allowed reliable measurement of proximal area from the first measurement site (D'Estais, Paragraph [0062]) and thereby be used to calibrate or reference the measurements of the first site and thus better improve the core thermal mapping of the system (D'Estais, Paragraph [0286]).
Regarding claim 4, together Miao, Yuan, and D’Estais teach all of the limitations of claim 3 as noted above.
Miao further teaches a graphical representation by the processor of the captured sensor data compiled (Paragraph [0030]; imager could be operated to generate a specific heat map of the environment by, e.g., measuring the rate at which different regions of the environment cool following the application of a specified amount of heat energy to the respective regions by the heating laser; Paragraph [0089]; user interface 508 could be configured to present information about a biological tissue (e.g., a temperature, a specific heat, a thermal conductivity)… present an image of a biological tissue generated using the imager 502) from the at least two sensor devices (Paragraph [0070]; could include the imager 310 comprising a camera having a first set of sensors configured to detect infrared light received from the biological tissue 350 and a second set of sensors configured to detected light emitted by the spotting laser 360 and reflected, scattered, or otherwise received from the biological tissue 350).
Miao fails to explicitly disclose the graphical representation is a three-dimensional graphical representation.
Yuan, however, further teaches a three-dimensional graphical representation (Paragraph [0047]; the information can subsequently be displayed on a three-dimensional thermal map 110. In one instance, the three-dimensional thermal map 110 includes the location and depth of the heat distribution and any corresponding hot spots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the graphical representation of Miao in view of Yuan and D’Estais to have been a three-dimensional graphical representation as taught by Yuan because it would further allow determining the depth, intensity, and location of the heat with in the patient and further allow comparison to the anatomical structures to thereby improve tracking and aiming of the treatment (Yuan, Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, together Miao, Yuan, and D’Estais teach all of the limitations of claim 3 as noted above.
Miao further teaches a representation by the processor of heated volume assessed from the captured sensor data (Paragraph [0030]; imager could be operated to generate a specific heat map of the environment by, e.g., measuring the rate at which different regions of the environment cool following the application of a specified amount of heat energy to the respective regions by the heating laser; Paragraph [0089]; user interface 508 could be configured to present information about a biological tissue (e.g., a temperature, a specific heat, a thermal conductivity) compiled from the at least two sensor devices (Paragraph [0070]; could include the imager 310 comprising a camera having a first set of sensors configured to detect infrared light received from the biological tissue 350 and a second set of sensors configured to detected light emitted by the spotting laser 360 and reflected, scattered, or otherwise received from the biological tissue 350).
Miao discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose the representation by the includes the heated volume depth and geometry below treatment location.
Yuan, however, further teaches a representation by the processor of volume depth and geometry below treatment location (Paragraph [0047]; the information can subsequently be displayed on a three-dimensional thermal map 110. In one instance, the three-dimensional thermal map 110 includes the location and depth of the heat distribution and any corresponding hot spots; Paragraph [0049]; the temperature at the surface of the human body as provided from the thermal scans 102 may be utilized to project temperatures beneath the skin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the representation of the heated volume of Miao in view of Yuan and D’Estais to have included the volume depth and geometry below treatment location as taught by Yuan because it would further allow determining the depth, intensity, and location of the heat with in the patient and further allow comparison to the anatomical structures to thereby improve tracking and aiming of the treatment (Yuan, Paragraph [0047]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation under – 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Examiner maintains all claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections under – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Examiner acknowledges the amendments and arguments to claims 1-3 and withdraws all previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b). In view of arguments to claim 3, the limitation “substantially at a treatment location and… substantially orthogonal to the treatment location” is understood to mean at two different angles with one placed at an angle perpendicular or in a range between 30-120 degrees as understood based on the Specification and Drawings.
Claim Rejections under – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 1, Applicant argues the rejection of Miao in view of Yuan fails to teach “a relational database”, “querying operations”, “generating depth-correlated spatial maps from database queries”, or “correlating measured surface spatial data to such a database-defined depth map”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner would like to point out the limitation of “a relational database” is broadly recited and description in the Specification does not provide additional specific details regarding what is considered to be a relational database. Such limitations are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The prior art of Miao teaches a look-up table which is considered to be a database as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a look-up table stores data in a relational manner, for example as rows and columns. For this reason, the look-up tables of Miao is considered to read on the claimed limitation as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding the limitation “querying operations”, Examiner would like to point out there is no claim language explicitly requiring specific querying operations. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., querying operations) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim merely recites querying a relational database. Miao teaches determining the temperature of regions by using a look-up table. The act of using a look-up table is considered to read on the claimed limitation of “querying a relational database” as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding the limitation of “generating depth-correlated spatial maps from database queries”, Examiner would like to point out there is no claim language explicitly requiring the spatial map be generated from database queries. The claim merely recites defining expected target temperatures correlated to the surface temperature. The claim recitation of querying a relational database does not require the map be generated from database queries. For example, the process of measuring a temperature by using looking up data from a sensor is considered to read on the claimed limitation. The act of looking up the amplitude of a signal to determine a temperature, and further determining the temperatures for a region in an image, as described by Miao in at least paragraph [0051], is considered to read on the claimed limitation as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation. The reference of Miao does not explicitly teach that the measurement occurs at what, or any, depth. The reference of Yuan is relied upon to teach that the temperature at a chosen depth can be measured based on a measured surface temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teachings of Yuan to measure the temperature spatial map at depth because it would have aided the operator in directing the thermal energy to structures below the surface of the skin.
Regarding the limitation “correlating measured surface spatial data to such a database defined depth map”, Examiner would like to point out there is no claim language explicitly requiring the temperature spatial map be a database-defined depth map. The claim merely recites defining an expected target temperature spatial map at depth. The defining of a temperature spatial map at a single depth is considered to read on the claimed limitation as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Miao teaches defining temperature spatial maps, but does not teach at what depth. Yuan, however, is relied upon the temperature at a chosen depth can be measured based on a measured surface temperature, as described in paragraph [0036]-[0037] and further in paragraphs [0047]-[0050]. Measuring the three-dimensional thermal map based on the surface temperature is considered to read on the claimed limitation as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant further argues the rejection of Miao in view of Yuan further fails to teach the performance criteria is “tied to a target spatial map at depth”, “defined by querying a relational database”, and “used later in evaluation steps.” Examiner would like to point out the claimed language does not explicitly require the performance data be tied to a spatial map at depth, defined by querying a relational database, and used in later evaluation steps. The claim language merely recites the performance objective identifies one or more performance criteria, and that the performance criteria is compared to the measured surface temperature spatial data. The selection of an area being a specific temperature as described by Miao in at least paragraph [0029] is considered to read on the claimed limitation of “identifies one or more performance criteria” as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, measuring and controlling the temperature to be equal to the specified temperature is considered to read on the claimed limitation of comparing the measured surface spatial data to the performance criteria as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant further argues the references of Miao in view of Yuan fail to teach collecting “spatial fields of temperature data”. Examiner would like to point out there is no claim language that explicitly requires the spatial map be fields of temperature data. Examiner would like to point out the reference of Miao already teaches measuring surface temperatures at multiple regions using an imager, as described in at least paragraphs [0030] and [0046]-[0047], which is considered to read on the claimed limitations as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant further argues the references of Miao in view of Yuan fail to teach “comparing measured surface temperature spatial data to a performance criteria.” Applicant further asserts the Miao compares temperatures at a single region, which is not a spatial comparison. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner would like to point out that there is no claim language requiring the comparison to be a spatial comparison. The claim merely recites comparing the measured surface temperature spatial data to the performance criteria. The act of comparing a single region from the mapped temperatures as described in Miao is considered to read on the claimed limitation as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant further argues the references of Miao in view of Yuan fail to teach “dynamically reporting of comparison results within a control loop”. Examiner would like to point out the claim does not explicitly require the reporting of the comparison results within a control loop. The act of measuring and determining the location of the thresholded data as described in paragraphs [0051]-[0052] is considered to read on the claimed limitation as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant further argues the rejection under 35 USC 103 does not provide proper KSR motivation, cited references serve different purposes, and relies on hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the cited references are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the references of Miao and Yuan are both directed toward methods of thermal imaging a patient and are thus in the field of the endeavor of spatial temperature mapping. Furthermore, both Miao and Yuan are directed toward thermal imaging of the patient, specifically using infrared imager which are considered to be reasonably pertinent to the claimed system of a thermometry system including an infrared camera, as understood within the claims and Specification. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the modification of measuring the spatial temperature at depth would have aided in targeting structures beneath the surface of the skin, as taught by Yuan. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
For these reasons, all rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dean N Edun whose telephone number is (571)270-3745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anh Tuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEAN N EDUN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
03/21/26